US and EU antitrust regulators have their eyes on Windows RT

US and European regulators have a watchful eye on Microsoft, after it emerged last week that it would be impossible for other vendors, such as Google and Mozilla, to develop browsers that are competitive with Internet Explorer on Windows RT (Windows 8 on ARM).

Microsoft disclosed last year that development of third-party apps would be limited to Metro on ARM processors. Microsoft leaned on security concerns as its chief reasons for why it was locking down the platform, but that wasn’t enough to prevent developers from complaining.

It is surprising that it took until now for somebody to make a big stink about it, but here we are. At issue is the 2009 decision in which the EU required Microsoft to give users choice of browser when installing Windows, as well as offering a version of Windows without Internet Explorer. Mozilla claims that Microsoft’s locked-down Windows RT violates this ruling.

Microsoft’s in the clear — for now

Not so fast. The European Commission says it is aware of Mozilla’s claim, but the ruling applied to PCs only. This means that if Mozilla wants to push the issue, it will have to argue that tablets are still PCs. That said, there is the possibility that ARM-based PCs could pop up in the future — actually, that’s probably likely — so Microsoft’s going to have to figure out a defense of its position soon.

The US is taking the same “wait and see” attitude. According to TechNewsWorld, the Senate Judiciary Committee does plan to review Microsoft’s browser decision, but called it “preliminary” and said no hearing is scheduled. So while there may be some question as to whether or not Microsoft is running afoul of the law here, it appears for the time being that Redmond is in the clear.

So, is Microsoft really doing anything wrong? I don’t think so. Windows RT is not Windows, and really isn’t intended for PCs but devices, where other companies have similarly strict app requirements. Look at Apple, it does the same thing in keeping a lot of apps out of iOS. Microsoft is doing the same, and in both cases it has a lot to do with security.

It’s all about security

Browser vulnerabilities are the most common way attackers gain access. When code for these apps are more tight, there are less holes for the hacker to exploit. The browsers in these mobile platforms are more tightly linked to the OS itself. Device operating systems are very strict in who they let in to certain processes — regardless of whether its iOS, Android, Windows Phone, etc. — and that’s a good thing.

While it is disappointing that we cannot select our own browser with modern mobile operating systems, in reality we’re much better off. The attack vectors are limited and if somebody’s getting in, it’s the platform’s fault. The evidence has shown that the tighter the control on the ecosystem itself, the less of a chance of malicious attack. Just look at the difference between Android and iOS when it comes to malware.

Android’s much more lenient app rules have allowed attackers to exploit the OS much more frequently then they have on the iOS platform. But even there, Google has clamped down on some sections of the code in an attempt to protect you the user. Then above and beyond security, the device market is nothing like the PC industry.

In mobile devices, you have something called choice. Don’t like one platform and its rules? There’s plenty of others to choose from. It’s not like you’ll ever be forced to use a Windows RT device — and heck, if you really want to use a different browser, there’ll be plenty of low-power x86 Windows 8 tablets anyway.

Tagged In

Nothing new to see here, both Mozilla and Google are making a fuss without a single real fact for them.

Don’t like Windows RT one-browser only policy? Go buy an iPad, a x86 W8 tablet, an Android tablet, or even a Linux tablet.

Tablet are one-trick devices, not multi-puspose PCs so the ban on browsers based on security reasons is good enough, main example: Apple

BigOkieTechie

LMAO…u made me LOL.

OK…single fact. Do tablets have processors, display information to a visual output device, allow input from the user via typed command or object manipulation, and allow execution of pre-compiled/interpreted applications?

That’s a PC if you ask me. Just cause you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig. Tablets are a computing device, which makes it a PC. Personal Computer. Period. Smartphones are as well.

BTW…one-trick devices? Are you trollololing? I have an office app on my tablet…and a web browser…and an Android Marketplace app…and media streaming apps. One trick?

U so funny.

Tumultus

Your opinion of what a PC is won’t change the fact that tablets on ARM are not! Otherwise, my XBOX as well as my 15 year old HP calculator and the iPod must be considered as PC too. Just like cell phones (especially smartphones), Windows on ARM tablet devices are mobile consumer products.

There is a difference in “computing device” and “Personal Computer”:. Stop trying to blurry the line! We have enough confused people walking around already. :)

Matt Harris

It is you that is confusing the issue. The simple fact is that your calculator and your phone all probably have more computing power than my geriatric windows PC. People are splitting hairs and you are silly enough to play along. Yes your apple i products are all personal computing devices, or are you saying something blindingly inane, like it must have an intel X86 processor to be a PC?

BigOkieTechie

Exactly. Tumultus is trying to make that solely certain hardware attributes make a personal computer.

A personal computer, since the age of the VIC-20 and TRS-80 Model II, have been defined as computing devices that perform multiple functions via execution of various, differing software applications through predefined instruction sets on compatible processor(s).

Just because something is mobile, or it uses modified version of an earlier OS, or has no peripheral/attached input devices, doesn’t mean it’s not a PC. My phone allows me to write letters, play games, send emails, text, skype, etc. It does everything my desktop PC does, but has less powerful hardware. It even has a keyboard…slider phone.

Same goes for my tablets. They are ARM11 architecture, and I am streaming Shoutcast audio media on it right now just like I do my desktop PC that has an AMD Phenom II x6 1090T.

Oh well, maybe Tumultus has a calculator that plays CoD lol

http://profile.yahoo.com/2VLNSQP4CKYBGHQNSAN324FBIE Phands

He so funny, but you so stupid.

BigOkieTechie

I love you too. I’m gonna like you for that. lolz X-D

JohnC238

“It is surprising that it took until now for somebody to
make a big stink about it,”

I am not surprised at all that it took this long for
somebody to make a stink. It is a good strategic
move.

“So, is Microsoft really doing anything wrong? I don’t think
so.”

Actually there is a difference between “wrong” and ‘illegal’. Is Microsoft doing anything illegal? Probably not. Are they doing something wrong? Most definitely MS is doing something wrong.

Microsoft has a huge problem. Well they have many huge problems really.

One of their biggest challenges is that Microsoft put all its eggs into this Win-8/Metro/RT basket and Microsoft desperately needs the consumer to adopt Win-8/Metro/RT. The more stumbling blocks that are in the consumer’s way, the less likely people will be to embrace Win-8/Metro/RT. And yes, even though Win-8 and RT are different animals, as far as the consumer is concerned they are one in the same; Microsoft has made sure of that by the way they introduced it all. So, what harms one will harm the other.

Above I said that Google and Mozilla waiting may have been a strategic move because another challenge MS has is the number of people that dislike IE and have fallen in love with other browsers (or/and the number who defiantly use other browsers just to sick it to Microsoft). The number of people that want to use other browsers is huge. If those people can use other browsers by staying away from Win-8/Metro/RT this can only harm adoption of Microsoft’s new unified OS. Because of the cloud, apps, etc… most users are beginning to have options other than MS for their OS. So by waiting to complain, Google and Mozilla have let MS get more firmly set in a position of alienating the users who do not like, or do not use, IE.

Then there are the many who do use IE but will see no reason to shift from the nice OS Win-7 to this new and restrictive OS (Yes, yes. Win-8 is not RT. That does not matter, remember Microsoft has convinced the consumer Win-8/Metro/RT are one in the same and appearances always trump reality when it comes to selling the consumer a product). So of the IE users, few will probably jump ship from Win-7 to adopt Win-8 which leaves a smaller number who will be adopting Win-8.

MS also has the bad press about Win-8 not supporting DVDs. Yes the consumer can hunt the net and find a codec that will allow Win-8 to play DVDs but in general, users do not want to hunt the net to make their OS work. This DVD silliness is in my opinion a case of Microsoft being penny wise and pound-foolish. Yes the fees add up but Microsoft has a huge war chest and they need to have reasons for consumers to get Win-8/Metro/RT not more reasons for consumers to pass it by.

If Win-8 flops, and gets bad press because it is a flop, the bad press will harm Metro/RT because what consumer wants to get a phone with an OS where the OS is a flop on other platforms. The reverse is also true, if Metro/RT flops, that flop will harm adoption of Win-8.

As previously mentioned, Microsoft has that albatross Win-7 to deal with. Win-7 will be supported until 2020 and it is a great OS. Even if Win-8/Metro/RT is an OK OS, why switch from Win-7 if Win-7 is great and Win-8/Metro/RT has the appearance of a big learning curve? MS needs Win-8/Metro/RT to be accepted now, not in 2020 when support for Win-7 ends. The PC world paradigm is rapidly changing and by 2020 the PC as we knew it may no longer exist.

Microsoft needs Win-8/Metro/RT to have better acceptance than the Zune or Vista and yet there are more and more reasons for the consumer to stay away from Win-8/Metro/RT. Microsoft has bet far too much on Win-8/Metro/RT to be able to afford a flop. In the past Microsoft could move past a flop and regroup because mostly Microsoft had a monopoly and if one OS flopped the consumer had to wait until the next MS OS, but that monopoly is vanishing.

Microsoft is playing this game as if they still have a monopoly where as Microsoft’s competitors seem to be fighting for every customer. Microsoft can try to use their old paradigm and assume that the consumer will adopt whatever MS tries to force feed the consumer but that paradigm is gone.

With all the people that love browsers other than IE, it would benefit Microsoft if Microsoft gave those IE haters a reason to adopt the new OS rather than reasons to stay away.

http://www.webstatsart.com/ Webstats Art

I can’t see the argument. I buy Mac products and rely on apple’s choice of browser i.e. Safari

Matt Harris

Ed, I read your item with interest, until you let the cat out of the bag. For some reason I totally fail to understand you appear to think that the PC market does not have choice while the “device” market does. Lets summarize this arbitrary position.

It would appear on the face of it that there is more choice in the PC market that the ‘device’ market. Please trot out some apple stats and provide that mobile devices actually offer more choice.

Then we come to this interesting term ‘device’ what exactly is a device. It is clearly used here as a term that has special meaning to the author, but it is in reality a totally undefined item.

Fopr the purpose of what Ed has to say I must assume that a ‘device’ is a personal computing device that does not meet his standard of “personal Computer” although this truly is supposition on my part.

I do take exception to the “It’s not like you’ll ever be forced to use a Windows RT device” don’t speak to soon. My employer has always dictated the mobile phone I use.

JohnC238

Sorry but just because something simply exists does not mean it is an actual viable alternative OS for the typical user. Isolated exceptions have never altered the general truth of a general rule.

2012 PC-Desktop OS market share stats:

Windows market share 92.26%
Mac OS market share 6.47%
Linux market share . 98% (less than one percent.)
Other OS only . 29% (less than one third of one percent)

In general, and for the masses, the only viable desktop OSs (OSs that run what the users need to run) are Windows and Mac. (And Mac only really gets a tiny honorable mention for good effort.)

http://profiles.google.com/taerog ta erog

antitrust? Look at IOS. it is much more restricting then Windows is.

ExtremeTech Newsletter

Subscribe Today to get the latest ExtremeTech news delivered right to your inbox.

Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Copyright 1996-2016 Ziff Davis, LLC.PCMag Digital Group All Rights Reserved. ExtremeTech is a registered trademark of Ziff Davis, LLC. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Ziff Davis, LLC. is prohibited.